Wow, I've avoided this thread until now, but I've gotta come in here and put in my 2 penny's worth.

OP - I don't have time to install every distro, especially ones that have similar goals (and DON'T say you are unique - almost every conceivable desktop usage scenario has multiple distros that could service it, and that's not counting self-builds like Arch & Gentoo). I'm going to read up the aims, and package selection, and a review if their is one, and MAYBE, if I'm intrigued enough, might play in a VM for half an hour. That's about it, to be honest. It's really hard to re-invent the wheel - for the scenarios I encounter myself, I'm happy with the distros I use. If I read a review that says it's awesome and better than what I use, I might consider it, but I don't have time to "tread new ground" myself. It'd be a bit like deciding to buy a new car, then insisting on test driving every make and model that I could find.

Sal - I'm sorry, but Linux isn't about anarchy, it's about freedom. The freedom of the user, to do what they want. This includes using propriatory software. I once saw a quote on another forum - "I don't use Linux because it's free, I use it because it's better". I like that quote, but I also like the fact that it isn't always true. I like running Steam and the native games I can, because I have the freedom to do it. I use iTunes to sync my iPod because it's easier for me. I'm not going to go out of my way to make life harder, just because the non-free developers are "evil". As a consumer, I'm after the easy life, as most of the world is.

The 'freedom' you demand is a) not freedom at all and b) is not what is meant by "freedom" in regard to OpenSource. You have taken the word "freedom" and applied your own misunderstanding to it and now use that as justification for your behaviour.

The freedom you demand is to do what you want, when you want, without regard to the wider community, the implications, the future or the truth. Sorry, that is not freedom.

The freedom that OpenSource offers is the freedom to examine, to copy, to alter and to share. The proprietary stuff you add denies all those freedoms and encourages the mindset of "hey, who cares about sharing and copying, as long as I get to have what I want". That is not freedom, that is childish and selfish. Perfectly in line with the 'consume now and let someone else clear the mess up" attitude that modern consumerism requires in order to function. It's the same mindset that says "who cares if third world children made my clothes, at least they're cheap for me to buy".This selfish demand to have everything is what will kill Linux in the long run and those who aim to destroy Linux are well versed in the tactics of extend, embrace and extinguish. They don't mind waiting a few years, carefully encouraging people to accept proprietary code now. Watching as the distros diverge further and further from each other until all there is is a bunch of vaguely related OS's, incapable for the most part of being self sustaining, stuffed to the brim with oh so convenient blobs and apps and then they'll bring the patent lawyers into play and that will be the end of that.

So by that definition if I understand it right anyone who uses proprietary software (even though they may not know what that actually means) because they don't have the knowledge or the time to sit in front of a PC hour after hour trying to figure out something they know absolutely nothing about are not only terminally idle but morally bankrupt, useless and bereft of any integrity ?

Why did I come to Linux?1. Sick of viruses and malware etc.2. I wanted to have an alternative to Windows (more reliable).3. It's FREE! With bags of support.

Linux is NOT my hobby. I don't have the time. I think it's brilliant for mine and many other ORDINARY people's requirments. I shout it from the hilltops to others as a safe and useful computing platform . I regret that I do not have the time to delve into the inards of Linux more. As such I rely on people such as this forum to help me....and I thank you. I am (probably) the majority of popular release distro users.

Please don't look down at me if I want an 'out of the box' working OS>

All this started because I pointed out that the person making a new distro ought to consider more than just "lazy people". That there are bigger and more important issues than mere convenience and that we already have umpteen distros that cater to "lazy people".

All this started because I pointed out that the person making a new distro ought to consider more than just "lazy people". That there are bigger and more important issues than mere convenience and that we already have umpteen distros that cater to "lazy people".

It still sounds like your supporting software anarchy. Are you against Debian & Fedora, on the basis that they are making decisions on your behalf with regard to software patching? If you did delve into the source code, and disagreed with a patch, you couldn't compile your own as it would break compatibility. Does this make them the enemy too?

It still sounds like your supporting software anarchy. Are you against Debian & Fedora, on the basis that they are making decisions on your behalf with regard to software patching?

Firstly - what is wrong with anarchy? Or are you using "anarchy" in the currently misunderstood sense of "chaos". That is not what anarchy means.

Secondly - both those distros are not listed by the Free Software Foundation as 100% free. Debian has made some moves towards that goal and a default install is 100% free (as long as you don't then go and add the "non-free" repo). The reason for not including it is the mere existence of the non-free repo. The argument being that even to include it, though it's not enabled by default, leads users to think that such software is OK and by the FSF's standards, it isn't.Fedora, as far as I know, includes proprietary blobs in the kernel and thus it is not 100% free, even if the final install lacks nvidia drivers, flash and all the other odds and ends.So there are two levels of "Non-free" - the non-free that is required for hardware functionality and the non-free required to make the web the irritating, distracting place it has become.How better to find out how free your computer is than by installing a 100% free distro? Some work, 100% out of the box, some lack functionality (usually in the wireless department). That way, at least you have a choice "do I add the package for this hardware or do I replace the hardware?" In the process you gain knowledge and understanding - in what way is this objectionable? The same goes for flash, nvidia, etc. Just because Debian, Trisquel, et al, don't add this stuff by default, doesn't mean you as a user are not free to add it if you choose - but you make the choice, it is not made for you. The more power that rests in your hands, the better and that is the basic foundation of the OpenSource movement - that the power and choice rest with you and not with someone else who may not have your best interests at heart.If that is "anarchy" then give me more of it.

Just because Debian, Trisquel, et al, don't add this stuff by default, doesn't mean you as a user are not free to add it if you choose

But as you point out the FSF will see you as the enemy .. how ridiculous is bitching just because Debian has a non free repo.Trisquel should be banned then because it's "possible" for the user to install flash,etc.

And if you're OK with people adding their own non free stuff .. why is it so wrong for a distro creator to save you the trouble or make it as easy as possible. ?

I'll go totally free if and when it suits ME .. I will NOT have it thrust upon me by anyone .. the FSF should be OK with me having the freedom to choose my own course, but instead seem intent on limiting my choices .. I for one wouldn't call that "freedom", and if that's not the freedom they're talking about .. TOUGH .. it SHOULD be

BTW, I have 2 cups and a piece of string here, it's not as good as an Android phone but you're free to use it however you wish.(It's my guess you still have a mobile phone right ?)That seems to be the FSF argument right there .. make sommat "as good as" or stop bitchin when people go elsewhere.

The free software movement seems to have morphed into "anti proprietary" instead of "pro freedom/choice" .. which is exactly why they're viewed as a bunch of kooks .. get back to creating good free alternatives instead of just whinging about non-free and people/distro builders will follow.Stop trying to drop proprietary to your level .. raise yourself to theirs .. or have the free software movement given up on competing on technical merit ?

Only someone with too much spare time would consider the need to "fix" your OS to make it functional acceptable.

good work but not for me sorry but gnu/linux is all choice that to me is the thing hell there is fsf and trisquel and things or now fsf ok'd debian but choice and for geeky nerds like me(plan 9 ) (gnu/hurd) (bsd) (haiku) . does it matter NO .

Logged

debian linuxmint arch and crux oh hate to say it on a linux web page but freeBsd and OpenIndiana